1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148 
Municipals refuse third-axle option
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Despite the recent number of overloading prosecutions against the drivers and operators of two-axle refuse vehicles, three-axle chassis used on refuse collection have not sold in the numbers expected, according to David Gardner, the managing director of refuse vehicle builders Norba.
Speaking at last week's Institute of Waste Management conference in Torbay (see page 11), Gardner asserted that most 4x2 municipal chassis are specifically designed for 16tonne operation, and have inadequate spare capacity for excess loading in the driveline, brakes and engine power.
Fitting a third axle to a conventional 4 x 2 municipal chassis could, in some cases, produce a tail-heavy unit that has a "tendency to drive straight on when it should be turning", reports Gardner.
While acknowledging that third-axle conversions can be of considerable benefit when fitted to longer wheelbase 4x2 chassis, Gardner says the benefits should be carefully compared with the option of buying a purpose-built 6x2 or 6x4 chassis complete from a vehicle manufacturer.
He told delegates that vehicle selection should be on the basis of the right specification, not just on price.